gosub
~#
If this was radio show 'the unbelievable truth' I'd buzz after this as one of the truths you were trying to smuggle past the panel
I'd have gone for "said that A50 should be invoked the day after the ref. "
If this was radio show 'the unbelievable truth' I'd buzz after this as one of the truths you were trying to smuggle past the panel
I
I agree it may be problematic, but in my view Labour should campaign against brexit because that was their stance before the referendum.
yeah, but they come with austerity added.Didn't the conservative party also campaign against Brexit in the referendum?
The point is that by your reasoning (and I use the word in its loosest sense) having campaigned against Brexit in the referendum, the Conservatives should also have stuck to their principles and refused to enact Brexit even though the electorate voted for it.yeah, but they come with austerity added.
1. Are you familiar with the concept and generally accepted aims of a referendum?
2. Are you aware Labour does not have a majority in Parliament?
3. Did you know Labour had MP's and members and supporters in both camps during the campaign even if their policy was the same as the LD's, Greens, Tories, Scot Nats, Plaid etc?
3. Presumably, your view is Labour wouldn't need a second referendum to kill Brexit as these are merely 'problematic'. Instead they could simply ignore the vote and just crack on? Can you see any problems, for example electorally or in respect of the concept of liberal democracy, that might arise with this approach?
Nah. The whole shitshow is a Tory thing, they can own the result.The point is that by your reasoning (and I use the word in its loosest sense) having campaigned against Brexit in the referendum, the Conservatives should also have stuck to their principles and refused to enact Brexit even though the electorate voted for it.
What does 'stood aside' mean?1. 'Generally accepted'? No I am not rock solid in my understanding of what that would mean in relation to a referendum.
2. Yes
3. Yes
I did not introduce the concept of 'problematic', I responded to it's use by another poster.
I also said that Labour could've stood aside, let the winners get on with the unicorn chasing, and opposed and shown up what they were doing constantly.
You may think this is a wrong approach, but I would've voted for them because of other policies...mind you I am metropolitan and see it from my perspective.
Indeed..mind you I am metropolitan and see it from my perspective.
In this instance it would have been to let the Tories try to do whatever, and to automatically oppose it without explanation.What does 'stood aside' mean?
What does this mean? What does any of that mean? 'let the tories' try to do whatever'?In this instance it would have been to let the Tories try to do whatever, and to automatically oppose it without explanation.
What does this mean? What does any of that mean? 'let the tories' try to do whatever'?
What do you think has happened?
In a way, I agree with you that Labour have been stuck within a parliamentary process, rabbits in the headlights, not much to say. But the way out of that isn't to run back to the neoliberal EU.What has happened is that Labour has been suckered, or positioned themselves, into feeling like they have to say what they would do. They have been too involved in the Tory brexit narrative in my view, and would have been more appealing to me over brexit if they watched the Tories (doing whatever) without giving them ammunition in the form of the crap Labour brexit 'policy'.
Are you really 60+? Other people and groups have different aims and ends than you. Them not doing what you want them to do to meet your aims and ends is surely an early basic realisation for most people. Repeating over and over that they should do what you want them to do to an end that's yours not theirs is in no way making any sort of political point - or, indeed, showing any understanding of what politics is.What has happened is that Labour has been suckered, or positioned themselves, into feeling like they have to say what they would do. They have been too involved in the Tory brexit narrative in my view, and would have been more appealing to me over brexit if they watched the Tories (doing whatever) without giving them ammunition in the form of the crap Labour brexit 'policy'.
Talking of Labour and Brexit; Gary Younge's piece in today's 'Guardian' reminds us that the party's cornerstone 1997 PPB featured Fritz 'the New Labour bulldog' breaking free (taking back control?) and striding off into the sunlit uplands. Makes yer think...
View attachment 160586
This really happened, kidz.
I am stating my preference, as others (other people and groups) state theirs. I am not saying what they should do as a kind of order or demand.Are you really 60+? Other people and groups have different aims and ends than you. Them not doing what you want them to do to meet you aims and ends is surely an early basic realisation for most people. Repeating over and over that they should do what you want them to do to an end that's yours not theirs is in no way making any sort of political point - or, indeed, showing any understanding of what politics is.
Or stood aside so that Nigel Farage et al could have a goThe point is that by your reasoning (and I use the word in its loosest sense) having campaigned against Brexit in the referendum, the Conservatives should also have stuck to their principles and refused to enact Brexit even though the electorate voted for it.
If you decide to call a bulldog Fritz, don't be surprised if he ends up with a bit of identity confusion.Talking of Labour and Brexit; Gary Younge's piece in today's 'Guardian' reminds us that the party's cornerstone 1997 PPB featured Fritz 'the New Labour bulldog' breaking free (taking back control?) and striding off into the sunlit uplands. Makes yer think...
View attachment 160586
This really happened, kidz.